WP(C)/7070/2024 of KANDARPA BORAH Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS on 21 July 2026

ORDER

22.07.2026

Heard Mr. N Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H Sarma, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6; and Mr. RK Talukdar, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 and 8.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted to the petitioner in respect to the acquisition so carried out in terms of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) over an area of land of the petitioner admeasuring 0.43 hectares covered by Dag No. 237 of patta No.82, situated at village Tongona, Mouza Gohpur, under Gohpur Revenue Circle in the district of Biswanath, Assam.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that initially when the Circle Officer had prepared the assessment, the total value of the land along with the buildings standing thereon was calculated at Rs.39,74,000/-. However, the petitioner was only paid an amount of Rs.18,73,897/-, and it is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. This Court duly takes note of that pursuant to the notices being issued, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, wherein at paragraph No.3, it is mentioned that the total entitlement of the petitioner as reflected in the Award in terms with Section 3G of the Act of 1935 is Rs.23,64,059/- of which, an amount of Rs.18,73,897/- was duly paid by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA), Sonitpur, which is duly admitted by the petitioner, and subsequently an amount of Rs.4,90,162/- was paid by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition, Biswanath on 31.10.2019.

5. It is the specific case of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner is not entitled to any further amount.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the compensation which was awarded to the petitioner as regards the acquisition of the land is inadequate, taking into account that the buildings and the structures standing over the land have not been taken into consideration.

7. Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 categorically mandates that any of the parties to the acquisition proceedings would be at liberty to file an application seeking a reference to the Arbitrator as regards the question of inadequacy of the compensation.

8. Taking into account the said provision, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition cannot be proceeded with as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy. In addition to that, the amount which the petitioner would be entitled to or as to whether the compensation awarded is inadequate, is a question of fact which would require detailed adjudication on evidence.

9. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed.

10. Before parting with the records, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner to file an application seeking reference to the Arbitrator in terms with Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956.

11. This Court also finds it relevant to observe that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India Vs. P Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah and Another reported in (2022) 15 SSC 1, the determination of the compensation in terms with Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 has to be done by taking into account the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013.

12. Under such circumstances, it is observed that if a reference has been sought for by the petitioner, the said proposition of law as laid down by the Supreme Court shall duly be kept in mind.

13. With the above, the instant writ petition stands closed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant